Garry Breitkreuz

[Petitions, May 13th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a large number of petitions I will quickly introduce. They come from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, B.C., Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

They ask the House to introduce and support a motion that in the opinion of this House the government introduce a bill entitled “A Woman's Right to Know” that would guarantee that all women considering an abortion would be given complete information by their physician about the risks of the procedure before being referred for an abortion, and provide penalties for physicians who perform an abortion without the informed consent of the mother, or perform an abortion that is not medically necessary for the purpose of maintaining health, preventing disease or diagnosis.

[Civil Marriage Act, May 2nd, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make an observation before I begin my remarks. The Prime Minister claimed this past week that his priority was to pass the budget, but here we are on Monday debating the marriage bill. Why are Liberals so intent on ramming this bill through Parliament? Why is this their number one priority?

Let me proceed to my remarks. The debate around Bill C-38 often reverts back to the rights of Canadians. Proponents of the bill say that partners of the same sex have the right to marry. What seems to be forgotten, however, are the rights of children, who are just as Canadian as we all are. Their well-being seems to have been forgotten.

Concern for our children should be the very foundation of this debate. Critics say that we should not link children to marriage, but we know that marriage is the basis for a strong healthy family. Many Canadians are referring to Bill C-38 not as the “same sex marriage” bill but instead as the “traditional family” bill. This bill is threatening the very premise of traditional families, of which a mother and a father are at the core. Time and time again, studies have confirmed that our children benefit most when they are raised in a home with both a mother and a father. That fact cannot be lost in this debate.

We are being asked to support the introduction of a law that is against the sanctified ceremony which ultimately tends to the furtherance of life. I, for one, remain strongly opposed to such a law. I was opposed to any change to the definition of marriage when it came before the House in 1999 and my stand is unwavering. I will defend marriage in its true form as the union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Transmission of human life has been the focus of much of our societal values. Also, kids want to know who their biological parents are. For example, children in Australia are now arguing that they have the right to know the identity of their parents and to be raised by them if possible.

We are already seeing a deconstruction of the societal institution of marriage. Many youth think marriage is just love and commitment. Bill C-38 is only adding to that thought process. In the Netherlands, for example, expanding the definition of marriage has not encouraged more to marry. It has instead had the opposite effect. In the last three years it has become evident that the change in definition is in fact destroying the stability of marriage and is affecting children. What will the passing of a similar bill in Canada do to the generation ahead of us?

Protection of society should be foremost. Courts are becoming not a shield but rather a sword for this societal liberalism. Liberals talk about purging Canada of these toxic elements. We are now seeing people come before tribunals to have their views examined. This is the new inquisition. We are abandoning traditional liberalism.

That brings us to the battle cry of the Liberals during this debate: that those opposed to same sex marriage are “un-Canadian”. How much more derogatory could they get? What the Liberals are saying to us is that if we do not agree with their bill we are un-Canadian. They say we are un-Canadian because we wish to uphold the traditional definition of marriage, un-Canadian because we wish to see the very unique and religious union of marriage upheld and un-Canadian because we understand the ramifications attached to the passing of Bill C-38.

Information provided by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada defines those ramifications. Its document states:

Are people of faith un-Canadian? Polls have consistently shown that Canadians are deeply divided on the issue of same-sex marriage, yet the government contends that those who oppose the redefinition of marriage are 'un-Canadian'. Christians who cannot accept same-sex unions as 'marriage' will be forced into the closets recently vacated by gays and lesbians. The people whose values Canada was founded on will be pushed to the margins of society.

If not marriage, what language can we use to promote our beliefs, traditions and religious understanding of the nature of marriage without being silenced by accusations of intolerance? What language can we use to promote the enduring and exclusive sexual bonding of males and females, and the importance of this relationship to the raising of children?

The government is not required to change the definition of marriage. I urge all members to remember that. The Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that the charter requires the definition of marriage to be redefined.

Marriage under its current definition has withstood the test of time. Generations of heterosexual Canadians have had the privilege to be united in marriage, having met restrictions as set out in our laws, those restrictions being: first, it is between a man and a woman; second, it is restricted to those of a certain age; third, it is limited to two people; fourth, blood relatives are restricted from marrying; and fifth, both parties must be in agreement to the marriage; marriage cannot be by force.

These restrictions were put in place to protect Canadians and our society. Having restrictions does not equal a violation of human rights. The current definition of marriage is not a violation of human rights.

I have received hundreds of letters from my constituents in the riding of Yorkton--Melville and from other Canadians adamantly opposed to Bill C-38. For these people, marriage under its current definition is as true as the sky is blue. These letters come from all sorts of Canadians, including newlyweds and those who have been married for decades. They value the meaning of their vows and the recognition of marriage in the eyes of our land and of God. They cannot fathom how a government would take something so sacred and throw it by the wayside.

Among the letters I received was one from Regina. The author wrote that if Bill C-38 should pass she would consider her 35 year marriage annulled. She is certainly not alone in her thoughts.

This is not an issue that needs to be pushed down the throats of Canadians because a single government says so. In fact, just five short years ago, members of the Liberal government declared that the definition of marriage should not be changed. The then minister of justice stated:

Let me state again for the record that the government has no intention of changing the definition of marriage or of legislating same sex marriages...I fundamentally do not believe that it is necessary to change the definition of marriage in order to accommodate the equality issues around same sex partners which now face us as Canadians.

Here is another quote from that same minister of justice in 2000:

We recognize that marriage is a fundamental value and important to Canadians. That value and importance is in no way undermined by recognizing in law other forms of committed relationships.

What has changed since the Liberals assured and then reassured Canadians that they would uphold the traditional definition of marriage? Is this Liberal government under the impression that marriage is no longer a fundamental value and is now unimportant to Canadians? If that is what the Liberals believe, I am more than willing to share hundreds of letters that state otherwise. In fact, I encourage members on the government side to read these letters, because I do not think they comprehend the importance of marriage to Canadians. I urge the government to take this a step further and allow Canadians to speak for themselves instead of assuming it knows what Canadians think. Let us get out there and find out.

As elected representatives of Canadians, we should be representing the interests of Canadians. Bill C-38 is being rammed through so quickly that I believe many members have not had time to truly understand this issue and therefore represent Canadians properly in Parliament.

If we pass same sex marriage legislation we are telling the rest of the world that it is violating human rights, yet attempts to pursue same sex marriage as an international human rights issue have failed. In 1998 the European court of justice held that “stable relationships between two persons of the same sex were not regarded as equivalent to marriages...”.

In 1996 the New Zealand court of appeal rejected the recognition of same sex marriages despite the fact that New Zealand's bill of rights explicitly listed sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds of discrimination. When the New Zealand decision was challenged before the United Nations Human Rights Commission as a violation of the international covenant on civil and political rights, the UNHRC ruled in 2002 that there was no case for discrimination simply on the basis of refusing to marry homosexual couples.

To this date, no international human rights body and no national supreme court has ever found that there is a human right to same sex marriage. What is more, by passing Bill C-38 in Canada, we are taking away the religious rights and freedoms of Canadians. How un-Canadian is that?

In provinces that are allowing same sex couples to marry, mayors and marriage commissioners are obligated to perform official ceremonies or resign. There is no freedom there. In British Columbia there is already a human rights complaint against a Knights of Columbus hall because the members would not rent the facility to a lesbian couple for a wedding ceremony. There is no religious freedom there either.

Sweden and Canada are already creating a chill on expression of concern over same sex marriage. How can we criticize China for imprisoning those who practise their religion when we cannot offer protection of religious beliefs in Canada?

Finally, the underlying truth of Bill C-38 is that it is threatening Canadian families. While that may not be the original intent, that is what is happening. Marriage is the foundation of family, it is child focused and it has served Canadians since Confederation. Bill C-38 does nothing more than minimize marriage to committed adult relationships. Marriage will no longer be about having and raising children, and lost from Canadian law will be the words “husband” and “wife”.

The Liberals are asking us to alter the future of Canadian families. I simply cannot support such a detrimental request.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: I do not know. I cannot comprehend why we would not have put this into our Charter of Rights and Freedoms when we made the charter part of our Constitution in 1982. It was intentionally omitted. The member has just given an excellent example. There is a host of examples right across this country as to why we need this right.

If we think of all the rights around the world that people possess, I cannot think of any right that is more important and more fundamental than property rights, other than the right to life. I cannot imagine why we do not have that. It is an obvious right that should be included. That is why I brought this motion forward.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

And it does.

I did not use just the example of the airport or of this one particular act. I talked about farmers and the ability to sell their grain. Let me tell members a little more about that case.

There was a farmer in Manitoba who had the misfortune of having a certain disease come into his wheat. He had a very small percentage of diseased kernels in that grain. The Canadian Wheat Board refused to accept his grain. He had large quantities of this grain. If he could not sell it, his business of course would have been destroyed. He found a buyer in the United States who was willing to take his grain and give him a fair price for it.

The Canadian Wheat Board, which would not buy his grain, would neither allow him to sell it. Here we have a gross violation of property rights. And when we go to the courts, the courts say we do not have property rights in Canada.

I first want to get this passed as a general principle by this House. Then we can start working together as political parties, as politicians, as elected representatives of the people of Canada, to decide what is the best way to do that.

I have already made a suggestion: put it in the Bill of Rights. We could also look further as to ways to include that in the charter. That is more difficult because it is of course a constitutional amendment. It is something that I think we should start thinking about and looking at. I think once we explain this to the people of Canada, they will see that this is something that is best for this country and that it protects the average citizen in Canada.

In answer to the member's question, no, it does not refer to just one piece of legislation. It is a general principle. I hope that it would apply to all legislation and would be a caution on government to not run roughshod over the people of this country.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. The member said that this is a big motion. If we look at this carefully, it is a general principle. It is a principle that I would like this Parliament to approve. Once we approve this in principle, we can begin to look at ways to protect property rights in Canada. In a previous Parliament I put forward a bill that would have amended the Bill of Rights and that would have given a little protection.

This is not specifically aimed at one particular piece of legislation in this House. I am trying to achieve a principle of property rights entrenched in Canada. We could begin with the Bill of Rights, which this Parliament could easily pass. I think we also have to look at ways in which we can amend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to include this as a general protection that Canadians would have against their own government. Right now, the government can run roughshod over Canadians with any piece of legislation. They have no protection in law.

[Property Rights, April 21st, 2005]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should ensure that full, just and timely compensation be paid to all persons who are deprived of personal or private property or suffer a loss in value of that property as a result of any government initiative, policy, process, regulation or legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 227 is a straightforward proposal.

In the year 2003, the Supreme Court reminded all Canadians that they have no rights whatsoever when the federal government decides to take their property.

On July 17, 2003, the Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the class action suit Authorson v. Canada. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the federal government and against mentally disabled war veterans. The government had amended the Veterans Affairs Act to avoid paying hundreds of millions of dollars in interest on pension benefits the government had held in trust for about 30,000 veterans. The Supreme Court ruled:

Parliament has the right to expropriate property, even without compensation, if it has made its intention clear and, in s. 5.1(4), Parliament's expropriative intent is clear and unambiguous.

The Supreme Court's ruling also stated:

Lastly, while substantive rights may stem from due process, the Bill of Rights does not protect against the expropriation of property by the passage of unambiguous legislation.

If a government will take millions out of the pockets of 30,000 mentally ill war veterans, what hope does the average citizen have? It is obvious that something needs to be done to protect the rights of citizens to what the government rightfully owes them. This is why I introduced the motion and the intent of my motion is to start strengthening the protection of property rights in federal law for all Canadians one step at a time.

How can any member of the House be against providing proper legal protection to provide full and just compensation to anyone who has been ripped off by their own government?

Just last month, Polara Research conducted a telephone survey of 1,260 Canadian adults and an Internet survey of 8,000 consumers on behalf of the Canadian Real Estate Association. Question one asked: “How important is it to you that the government fairly compensates a property owner if their property is expropriated?” Ninety-two per cent of telephone respondents and 96.7% of Internet respondents thought this was either very important or important.

Question two asked: “How important is it to you that the government fairly compensates a property owner if restrictions are imposed on how their property is used?” Eighty-eight per cent of telephone respondents and 93.2% of Internet respondents thought this was either very important or important.

That is what the polls are telling us, but what are the people saying? I can tell this House that it is not pretty.

Over the last few months I have participated in a grassroots movement of landowner associations that are springing up across rural Ontario. These are good, honest folks who are angry at the government for being in their face, in their backyards and in their front yards. Government overregulation is driving them nuts. The government's refusal to listen is driving them out of their farmyards and on to the highways and on to Parliament Hill.

Mr. Speaker, if you could have gone with me to some of these meetings and heard firsthand accounts of how government is taking their property or devaluing it to zero by some of the regulations and some of the laws that are being passed, you would have been flabbergasted. These people are being driven off their land and are being deprived of their livelihoods. They are angry and they are looking for some redress to this gross injustice.

How bad can it get? If robbing the bank accounts of 30,000 mentally ill war veterans is not obscene enough for the federal government, hon. members should listen to this.

A small booklet was provided to me last week by the Canadian Real Estate Association that reprinted a very sad story from Jean-Paul Raymond's book, La mémoire de Mirabel . It is about Mr. Cardinal who had his home expropriated by the federal government to build the Mirabel Airport. Mr. Cardinal's home was among 35 homes and 20 farms that were expropriated to make way for a quarry to service the construction of the airport.

I want to quote from the booklet:

In La mémoire de Mirabel, Mr. Raymond says Mr. Cardinal decided to move south to nearby St. Eustache to build a new home. 'A strike interrupted construction and he was unable to return to his old home to finish moving out all his belongings. When he finally did return, he was struck with the sad surprise of seeing his house in flames. The federals had set fire to his house and it burned with his household things and personal belongings inside. A life worth of things had stupidly disappeared'.

The book also describes the story of Mr. Campeau. 'He had a poor heart and the strain from the long exhausting process of expropriation put him in the hospital. As he lay sick federal officials paid him a visit. They offered him $55,000 for his farm. Knowing that his land and all his buildings on it were worth more, Mr. Campeau declined. But the government came back with an offer that was lower; they said he would now only get $50,000'.

These examples are poignant because they are part of a double mistake. The homes were taken to make way for a quarry. But the government itself came to realize the quarry was not needed, and it was abandoned. Hundreds of families faced heartache as their heritage was stripped away. They faced painful, difficult and humiliating experiences.

Approximately 97,000 acres of Quebec's best farmland was expropriated. Despite the fact that 3,200 farm families were displaced only 5,000 acres were ever used for airport operations.

In the 1980s, the Mulroney government acknowledged that Mirabel was a mistake and that far too much land had been expropriated. Roughly 80,000 acres of expropriated land were returned to the original owners.

Now that the airport is completely closed to passenger traffic and may never expand the expropriated landowners believe that the 11,000 acres of land outside the airport perimeter should be returned to farming. They have formed a citizen's group called “The Commite du 11,000 Acres” to fight the case.

Aéroports de Montréal, ADM, continues to administer the 11,000 acres. A Bombardier Inc. factory is situated on part of the airport land outside of the 11,000 acres in question. Bombardier has indicated the land it now occupies is sufficient for its needs. But ADM and the federal government argue the land should be retained in case it may be needed by Bombardier in the future.

The Conservative opposition introduced a motion in the House of Commons on November 25th, 2004, calling on the government to sell back the surplus land.

That is the end of the quotation from the Real Estate Association booklet.

Talk about a heartless federal government. The Conservative Mirabel motion passed the House of Commons despite opposition from the Liberal government.

Now let us take a look at another Liberal bill rammed through Parliament without a guarantee of full, just and timely compensation. It is called the Species at Risk Act. Section 64(1) of the act states:

The Minister may, in accordance with the regulations, provide fair and reasonable compensation to any person for losses suffered as a result of any extraordinary impact of the application of

(a) section 58, 60 or 61; or

(b) an emergency order in respect of habitat identified in the emergency order that is necessary for the survival or recovery of a wildlife species.

Fair and reasonable compensation is not full, just and timely compensation, nor does fair and reasonable guarantee that property owners will get fair market value for their land taken out of production by the power given to the minister under the Species at Risk Act.

Then we have the unfair monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board, which is inaccurately named because it only applies to prairie grain producers, not all grain farmers in Canada as the name suggests.

A Saskatchewan farmer, David Bryan, grew a crop of wheat on his own land. He got into trouble when he tried to sell his wheat for a better price than what the Canadian Wheat Board would pay him. The federal government charged Mr. Bryan with exporting his own grain to the United States without getting an export licence from the monopolistic, dictatorial Wheat Board.

For violating this Soviet-style decree, Mr. Bryan spent a week in jail, was fined $9,000 and received a two year suspended sentence. Mr. Bryan, with the help of the National Citizens Coalition, appealed the conviction on the grounds that it violated his property rights as guaranteed in the Canadian Bill of Rights passed by Parliament in 1960. On February 4, 1999, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled against David Bryan's right to sell his own grain that he grew on his own land. I ask the House to listen carefully to what the Manitoba Court of Appeal stated on page 14 of the ruling:

Section 1(a) of the Canadian Bill of Rights, which protects property rights through a “due process” clause, was not replicated in the Charter, and the right to “enjoyment of property” is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society.

It is shocking that in a modern democratic country like ours property rights are not protected. I know of no other country in the modern world that does not protect property rights. I would ask anyone who is listening to this debate or reads the record of this debate whether they can believe that those words came out of a Canadian court of law. I repeat: “the right to 'enjoyment of property' is not a constitutionally protected, fundamental part of Canadian society”. I seek to change that.

Another concern for property owners was the Liberal government's proposed animal cruelty legislation that would have seen the animal cruelty provisions moved out of the general classification of property offences and into a section of their own; that would remove these provisions outside of the scope of the legal protection of section 492(2) of the Criminal Code. Ultimately this proposed legislation could open up the possibility that farmers, sporting groups and scientific researchers will be unjustly prosecuted. Animal rights groups in Canada will certainly use this new legislation as the basis for such prosecutions and in fact have already stated their intention to do so.

The cost of these prosecutions is one thing that farmers cannot afford, but the fact is that this legislation could affect billions of dollars worth of property without providing any legal means for those affected to receive fair, just and timely compensation for the manner in which their operations will be affected by this legislation and by the regulations that implement it.

These are just four examples of the Liberal government running roughshod over each person's right to own and enjoy property and to receive full, just and timely compensation if the government takes that property away from people, prohibits them from using and enjoying their property or reduces the value of their property by the regulations they impose upon us.

Chinese property owners have a better chance of getting full, just and timely compensation for their property rights taken from them by the government. At least property rights are entrenched in the Chinese constitution. But not in Canada's.

China has just recently put this in place and yet we in Canada do not recognize how important this is in a free and democratic society based on a market economy. If we want a strong economy, we must put property rights into the Constitution.

I can see people's eyes glazing over. They may not understand the importance of property rights, but I assure everyone that it is absolutely essential in a country like ours that they be properly protected. That is why I have brought this motion forward. I hope that people will approach this with an open mind, examine the issues, scratch beneath the surface and see how absolutely essential this is. Then I think the glaze in their eyes may fade away, because they will see that each one of us in Canada suffers because we do not have the proper property rights protection.

Because the Liberals will not fix this injustice, it will be up to us as Conservatives to do it. We can take the first step tonight by supporting Motion No. 227.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. That is a loaded question. One of the issues I am always faced with is that the people in my area have the attitude that the government in Ottawa does not care about our problems. The government will put forward an act on the Canadian Wheat Board that will affect only Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba and it is passed by members in Ontario and Quebec who do not have to live under its auspices. It will put in place an agriculture program such as the CAIS program. It is supposed to address problems on the farm but does not work and the government does not fix it so it alienates the people in the west.

It is just one of a number of grievances people have. This is not just in the agriculture sector. We could go on. Let us go on to electing senators and the Prime Minister not appointing the senators picked by the people of Canada.

We have huge problems on the farm. When those problems are not properly addressed by the government here in Ottawa, that leads people to feel they need to separate from Canada in order to take charge of their own affairs. That kind of attitude is deplorable. It makes people have a very negative attitude to government, to those elected representatives who are sent here but do not seem to take seriously the problems people have.

When we deal with issues such as this one with the Canadian Grain Commission, we need to keep in mind that these problems affect real people. We need to deal with those problems even if we do not thoroughly understand them and they do not affect our region of the country. We still need to deal with them in a timely and fair manner.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to explain to our city cousins, so to speak, some of the problems that are experienced on the farm. Very often people in the cities will have the attitude that there are a few problems, that people tend to whine and complain, but it is really not all that serious, that people are still going to make a living from agriculture and so on.

I have never seen the situation in agriculture as serious as it is at this point. People have likened it to being worse than in the 1930s when agriculture was at a low point some 70 years ago.

One of the things that really strikes someone when visiting with farmers is that many of them have tried to adjust to the realities of the world situation. They have adjusted by changing their farm operations, but because the government programs that are supposed to provide for a level playing field are not doing what they are supposed to do, the farmers are in really tough shape.

Our major competitors have large subsidies. They support their agricultural industries. We as Canadians do not. That makes it very difficult.

I could describe in detail some of the problems that they have experienced. For example, a devastating frost last August 18 killed many of the crops in a band right across Saskatchewan. It was not an isolated area. Because the frost was untimely and because we had one of the coldest summers ever on record--global warming has not reached our province yet--the crops were not well developed. The frost that hit on August 18 and another one which hit at the beginning of September absolutely decimated the crops.

Wheat, which normally would have gone 60 bushels to an acre if there was a good crop in our area, went two or three bushels to the acre. In fact, the crop looked beautiful but because the frost stopped the wheat from developing, the kernels were virtually green and shrivelled and could not be harvested. They blew out the back of the combine. Farmers were unable to harvest some of those crops. The crops that they were able to harvest were not of a sufficient quality to command the price that would keep the farmers on the land.

Input costs have gone up and commodity prices have not followed. Commodity prices around the world remain depressed, partly because of the subsidies in other countries, but the input costs that farmers are experiencing right now are astronomical.

Natural gas has gone up in price. It is a key ingredient in nitrogen fertilizers. Those fertilizers have risen dramatically in cost. Farmers need to use those in order to grow their crops. Fuel costs are a major expense for farmers. Our city cousins know what has happened to the cost of fuel. It has a huge impact on agriculture.

If only farmers could get a decent price for what they sell, this would not have such an effect upon them, but because these factors are beyond their control, they are in big trouble. Other countries recognize the importance of keeping a large number of middle class farmers on the land. Europeans starved during the second world war. They know that agriculture is absolutely essential to a country. When times get tough, people want good quality food. If we do not do something about our agriculture crisis, we will regret it one day.

The difficulties on the farm right now are beyond the management of the farmers, who are trying to do their best. The border closure, the BSE crisis, has had a huge negative impact on agriculture. Many grain farmers in my area went into cow-calf herds to supplement their income. Those cow-calf herds of course did not in the last couple of years bring in the income that would have helped those farmers remain economically viable.

All of these things have an impact.

There is one more thing included in the question my colleague asked and that is youth: because of the difficulties experienced by farmers, young people are not entering agriculture. If we do not have a turnover of farmers, if we do not attract young entrepreneurs to the agricultural business, there will be nobody to take over when the time comes for people to retire.

We may think that is not a serious problem. We may think that somebody will come along. It is not easy to come in and take over a farm. People cannot simply go to university to study agriculture and suddenly become good farmers who are able to manage. It is something we have to grow into. Our youth need to be nurtured. They need to be attracted into it. Right now they look at agriculture and they do not see it as viable.

As an aside, it is also an essential part of Canadian culture, I believe. Many people do not realize how important the maintenance of our rural areas in Canada is to our culture as a country. I cannot go into that as it really does not relate to what we are talking about right now, but we need to ensure that we have a strong, viable rural Canada in order for Canada as a nation to be strong.

I hope that people listening will take this to heart. I appreciate the opportunity to make comments in this area.

[Canada Grain Act, April 18th, 2005]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to this debate as it has unfolded here today. I will take the opportunity to remind those listening what the debate is all about before I address some of these issues and give the views of my constituents.

The bill that we are discussing is Bill C-40. It is a small bill that amends the Canada Grain Act and the Canada Transportation Act. Those two acts are being amended with some minor adjustments to Canada's system for handling and transporting foreign grain and grain products in Canada. These measures of course will reflect a recent decision made by the World Trade Organization dispute settlement body.

I want to point out that this decision was released in April 2004. The decision ruled in favour of Canada on the Wheat Board issue and in the rail car allocation issue but against Canada on three things: the rail revenue cap, the grain entry authorization and the grain mixing issues. That is what is being dealt with by this bill. Canada did not appeal the policy issues which it lost. The U.S. appealed its decision when it lost in regard to the Wheat Board.

The deadline that was created as a result of this is August 1, 2005. The government has delayed until the eleventh hour and now seeks to quickly rush through this bill. That is why we as Conservatives will have to hold our noses and support this as we have to do it at this point, but we will try to make an amendment. Hopefully the government will consider to have a review of this entire issue because there are huge concerns, as my colleagues have pointed out.

The American government has requested that the WTO examine the consistency of certain activities of the Canadian Wheat Board and other policies affecting the importation of grain and whether they adhere to WTO rules. I have just explained how these rulings came to be and the deadlines involved.

Now let me talk about the substance of this bill. This bill amends the Canada Grain Act to remove the requirement that authorization must be sought from the Canadian Grain Commission before foreign grain can enter licensed grain elevators. That authorization requirement will be removed. It no longer has to seek the approval of the Canadian Grain Commission.

The second thing Bill C-40 does is amend the Canada Grain Act and Canada grain regulations to remove the requirement that operators of licensed terminals or transfer elevators must seek the permission of the Grain Commission to mix grain. Third, it amends the Canada Transportation Act, so that the railway revenue cap will be extended to imported grain.

This bill, of course, will have the greatest impact on the Prairies, the western Canadian grain industry. I would like to point out, before I go further in my remarks, that one of the things desperately needed when we make these international agreements, and I think we have to do this for the future, is to negotiate mechanisms that more quickly resolve disputes. Some of these issues in regard to trade drag on and on, disrupt trade, and have a very negative effect on people who are involved in the particular industry that is under dispute.

International trade agreements like NAFTA and the WTO will only work for us if we can make the appropriate changes in Canada to adjust to them. We signed these agreements many years ago, but yet have failed to properly make them work for us because we do not ensure that our economy and the industries involved in these negotiations are structured to take advantage of these free trade agreements.

Market economics often do not drive the process, yet they should. We have to make a lot of regulatory changes in Canada to adjust to the new realities of our trade agreements, yet we have not properly done that.

I agree with my colleagues who have said that we need to have people come before our committee and explain to us what needs to be done. I also wish, while I am on this topic, that the government would be as quick to fix our agriculture programs, especially the CAIS program, as it is to fix other problems. Here we have something being rushed through. Liberals quickly address it, but we have huge problems in the agriculture industry, such as the CAIS program, which is a huge problem for farmers. It is very costly but not addressing some of the issues that are on the farm in a timely fashion.

As I talk about the regulatory changes that have to be made, let me point out that we have already had two major commissions, the Estey commission and the Kroeger commission, who made recommendations in the nineties to fix our grain handling and transportation system and the Wheat Board. They made very good recommendations and yet the government failed to implement these. This is the problem. We study these things and then we do not make the changes that we should make, and then all of a sudden we are rushing through things like this when we would not have to do so if we would have made the proper changes that we should have made ahead of time.

One of my colleagues pointed out that we need to go to a more commercial transportation system and I would agree with him. We have problems within our system and one of those is that the Canadian Wheat Board takes charge of our grain but then has to negotiate with the railroads. I will point out a little later on how that has created huge costs for farmers because we are not using a more commercial transportation system to drive the process. And it can be done.

Australians have made the necessary adjustments. Their farmers have opened up their wheat board and privatized it. They can buy shares in it and it has helped them. It has not hurt them. The scare tactic that if something is opened up or changed, it will destroy our marketing system is not true. In fact, the reverse may be true, that if we do not make some of these changes, it is going to have a very negative effect upon us.

I have many farmer friends in the U.S. and we compare our grading systems. I farmed for a few years and became quite familiar with it. They are flabbergasted at the archaic method that we use in grading. Very often someone takes wheat to the elevator, the agent there will look at the outside colour characteristics and a few other superficial things, and will grade the grain accordingly. This is so out of date. We have so many different grades that it almost becomes impossible to understand the system.

In fact, the 40 or 50 grades in our grading system tend to be quite arbitrary. When it comes to consumers trying to understand our system, they give up. It is not meeting the needs of a market driven economy and what we should have. For example, wheat should be graded on its milling characteristics, the quality of bread that it can produce. That is really not happening at this point. We have moved a bit to looking at the protein content and so on, but it is still not what it could be. Because the government has refused to implement the Estey and Kroeger commission reports, we have the problems before us.

I want to read some comments from a farmer in Wawota, Saskatchewan, which is not far from Yorkton--Melville. Keith Lewis writes:

The Grain Commission has become a problem for grain farming. In particular, the grading system. We've got just way too many grades and the segregation creates a lot of extra costs that really aren't necessary. The whole idea has to be looked at. I have talked to a number of grain farmers and we all agree that it is so difficult to manage separate grading factors.

Another problem is visual distinguishing. It is kind of unique to Canada. Our wheat has to be visually distinguishable. It is a factor that costs a lot of money.

We need to make the Canadian Grain Commission more relevant. In order to get a grade, the commission has to give it seal of approval. There are other guys able to do it, but it has to be the Grain Commission. The Grain Commission charges for all these services and in most cases it is not necessary.

There are a lot of issues that surround grading at the elevators-- inland terminals and elevators at the port. The fact that these people work for the Grain Commission and can go on strike when there are other privately-run agencies who can do the same job...Any time there is a disruption, it comes out of the farmers' pockets.

The Canadian Grain Commission is almost outdated, it's not relevant any more. We need to determine the role of the commission.

He makes some excellent points. There are other people who can provide the service. There are private corporations and private companies that can do the job probably for much less cost. Farmers are being saddled with these costs. They have no choice in the matter. They have to comply with this. Yet, it is not a service that is provided at the lowest cost to farmers.

I will not go through all the other points that he makes, but I think we have to listen to people like this who have experience with it and can point out to us the problems.

Another problem with the Grain Commission is that it is very secretive. Just like many parts of government we need to have more transparency. If we had that transparency, we could begin to make it work better.

Farmers are often forced to pay for this and yet they do not have any choice in the matter. If anyone else is interested in this I think the Hansard record will contain that letter.

I would also like to quote from a news release that was put out by the Western Barley Growers Association. I think it is useful for me to put this letter on the record as well because it points out other huge problems that we have.

We have the Liberal government opposite often defending what it is doing and saddling western farmers with its policies. I think this example is just unbelievable. It will point out that we have huge problems and we need to take another look at how we are dealing with the grains issue on the prairies. The title of the news release is “Canadian Wheat Board shipping fiasco costly for farmers”. It states:

“This backhauling of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board is turning top quality wheat into $80 per tonne wheat” said Douglas McBain, President, Western Barley Growers Association, when commenting on the fact that wheat in store in Churchill, Manitoba is now being reloaded and railed west to Vancouver.

I just want to interrupt this. The $80 per tonne is not a price that farmers can receive for their grain and still be economically viable. That is less than a quarter of what they should be receiving. People who are not familiar with this issue may not know that $80 a tonne for wheat is a deplorable price. In any event, I will go on to the next paragraph:

In November 2004, after shipping was closed for the season, the CWB moved wheat to Churchill. The farmers paid all costs of transportation and handling. That wheat is now being reloaded and shipped west to Vancouver to meet a sale commitment. The cost of extra elevations and handling and the additional rail freight charges could cost farmers another $100 per tonne.

“Why was this wheat shipped to Churchill in the first place, especially when the shipping season would be closed until sometime in June 2005?” asked McBain. “What we have here is the CWB calling contracts on wheat and putting it into commercial storage when they have no sale for it. This kind of action costs farmers some $80 million each year in storage costs with no one being held to account” said McBain.

Wheat and barley exported by the CWB is in the grain handling system some 40 days longer than canola which is handled outside the CWB (59 days versus 19 days).

“In western Canada we have a world class grain handling and transportation system which is capable of responding to market demands. If the system were allowed to function without CWB interference, farmers would save $80 million annually. This fiasco demonstrates that the CWB must be removed from any involvement in the gathering and shipping of grain” commented McBain.

It is astounding that wheat is taken from the Prairies, shipped all the way to a port in Churchill on Hudson Bay, put into the terminals there and then unloaded and taken all the way back to Vancouver. It is unbelievable that this kind of thing is happening. The cost is being borne by prairie farmers and they have no choice in the matter.

Let me also quote from a recent news release by the wheat growers and barley growers:

Farmers questioned Measner on the Board's recent decision to ship wheat from the ports of Churchill, Baie-Comeau and Thunder Bay to meet sales contracts at the Port of Vancouver.

“I don't think most farmers were satisfied with the explanation the CWB provided,” says WCWGA President Cherilyn Jolly. “Of course we understand the need to meet sales commitments, but there has to be cheaper options than shipping grain backwards all the way across the country.”

Canadian Grain Commission (CGC) Chief Commissioner Chris Hamblin discussed the many downgrading factors in the 2004 harvest. She also spoke about the CGC's view that the industry needs to retain KVD as the cornerstone of Canada's grain grading system. The Wheat Growers and Barley Growers responded with a joint resolution calling for changes in Canada's grading and marketing system to allow for grain to be purchased from farmers on the basis of its quality attributes, as opposed to its visual characteristics.

This is the point that I was making before. We have to change our grading system. The bill does not address some of the serious problems. That is why we, as Conservatives, will be asking for a review by the government of this entire issue. It just cannot be a review that then is forgotten and gathers dust on the shelf. It must be a review that is acted on. The Estey and Kroeger reports are now gathering dust on a shelf. We have to ensure that this report does not.

Let me continue the quote:

“KVD imposes too many restrictions on our ability to develop and market varieties that both farmers and our customers need,” says Jolly. “We need to move beyond a rigid visually-based grading system to one which is responsive to the quality traits that end-users are seeking.”

Saskatchewan Wheat Pool CEO Mayo Schmidt gave the keynote address last night saying we need to restore the profitability of wheat. Instead of it being a crop most farmers use to get rotation, we want to make wheat win. Schmidt stressed the global competitiveness of Canadian wheat will depend on greater research, improved market access, lower worldwide subsidies and a focus on product innovation.

That is why I was saying that we need to ensure that our international agreements begin to work for us. We need to make the changes here.

There are other things I could mention, but I think that members get the drift. We have to remove barriers that are restricting value added on the Prairies. The present structure is not working, and the wheat board is included in that structure. The claim is it does not hinder that in Canada, but when we talk to some of the people who really are involved in the industry, they will tell us otherwise.

In summary, we will be supporting Bill C-40. We will hold our noses and support this bill, even though there need to be a lot more changes. We are hoping the government will act as quickly to address many of the other problems in agriculture that do not seem to be on the top of its agenda. We will be pushing an amendment to Bill C-40 to have a review and make sure that Bill C-40 gets passed in time to comply with our agreement at the WTO.

[Petitions, April 18th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions from constituents in the town of Springside in my riding. They ask Parliament to define marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman because that is the best foundation for families and the raising of children. They state that whereas the definition of marriage has been changed by the courts, it should be the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament to define marriage and not the courts. They ask Parliament to define marriage in federal law as being the lifelong union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I have another petition of a similar nature from a number of constituents in Wadena. I will not go through it all, but they are essentially asking for the same thing.